He did not say that and niether did I. His post was was in response to mayabong insinuating that our military is incompetent...and it is not. It is micro management by civilans that prolongs conflict...and is not the fault of the military.

the military is incompetent and that is why it needs to be controlled.

ok so who do you 2 suggest controls the military?

he was blaming its faults on the civilian leaders.

ok so who is going to do a better job of controlling them?

the military is a bunch of brainwashed kids. i feel really bad for them being used in their prime. god bless their souls i know they mean well. it is really sad though. they just do not know any better.

there is a reason why the military spends so much money going into small towns and poor areas. they make these kids feel incompetent in their own lives and convince them to fight for lies in the act of blind patriotism.

infact the military targets mostly what society would deem as incompetent people and convinces them they are somehow doing good.

Our politicians should decide where and when to engage our military...once they make the decision to engage our military...as General MacArthur said "their is no substitute for victory" and the military should be allowed to conduct the war as they see fit. Micro management by civilians and the political games they play increases the loss of life on all sides including collalteral lives. Left to their own devices the military will fight a brutal but short war...which ultimately saves lives...all around.

The rest of your post is pigshit.

no it is not.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...110302528.html

"More than 44 percent of U.S. military recruits come from rural areas, Pentagon figures show. In contrast, 14 percent come from major cities."

there is a reason why the military targets these places figure it out. i dont make it up it is fact. they prefer under educated poor people who are easily controlled.

maybe with your post you will realize the military is just a political pawn and nothing else.

When I was in the military...every enlistee had a highschool diploma (GED's) were not allowed...every Senior NCO had to have an associate degree or the equivalent of an associate degree and many had full degrees. Every officer had to have a full degree and many had master's and PHD's. No one was allowed in that had any kind of a misdeameanor conviction let alone a felony conviction.

Because the politicians micro manage the military...and prolongs conflicts the military begins losing their cream and to fill the loss they have to reduce standards to get warm bodies in to fill the ranks. This happens in every prolonged conflict.

As a result of two...unecessarily prolonged conflicts the military...not only now accepts people with certain criminal convictions...and medical conditions...as well as people that do not even have a GED...and the age limit for enlistees has risen from 26 years of age to 42 and maybe even 46 years of age...and Senior NCO's are not required to have associate degrees or the equilency. Officers are still required to have a full degree...to the best of my knowledge.

So no it is not what the military prefers...it is what they have to do because of micro management by civilians.

we are not talking about when you were in the military. i live in the now.

ok so whether or not is has to do with politicians or civilians is not the point.

the point is currently the military is indeed incompetent. whether from their own actions or not does not change the fact that it indeed is. and the politicians want it this way.

again i will state they want poor undereducated people who are easily controlled. thus why they do the majority of recruiting in poor rural areas. this is indeed fact. now i put my own slight spin on it. but you did indeed agree with it as its current state NOW (education level needed to enlist) and the fact of where the recruiting is done.

they do indeed prefer it. because the military only prefers what the government prefers. they do not nor should not have a say. to make their own decisions is not their job. they serve the "will" of the politicians who were in turn elected to serve the "will" of the people. what they "prefer" does not exist. what they prefer is only what the politicians direct them to prefer as they see fit.

By the way I am speaking about the Army and Marine Corp having lower standards now...I am not aware if the Airforce or the Navy has had to lower their standards...I doubt it.

Once again your post is pigshit...you are now dismissed.

i can keep owning you if you want. :)

you cannot dismiss facts. well you can dismiss them from your own psyche but that would make you disillusional. which you clearly are.

Before we go to war there needs to be another false flag attack. Look for a dirty bomb to be set off in the USA and/or a USA ship that is off the coast of Iran to be "sunk" by Iran. I am thinking the sparks will begin to fly within the next few months.

In Fiscal Year 2008, only 83 percent of new Army recruits had a high school diploma (or at least 15 college credits), comparted with the Department of Defense (DOD) average of 92 percent.

This is 2010 so I suspect the 83 percent that have high school diplomas is a few points less.

No, not really. What the fuck do we need European deployments for? To stop the Russians? They are trying to join NATO, not attack it. The administrative stuff, the cooks - well, most of that is outsourced these days, even in a war zone such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

I understand that a large percentage of troops are dedicated to supply and logistics. However, we have two hundred thousand troops in a combat zone and that's only a fraction of the troops we have.

Your on crack. I went into the Marines in 1986 after dropping out of high school. (Since then I've graduated from college.) I don't believe there was ever a requirement to be a high school graduate. It's based on test scores, not a diploma.

well, it's not a matter of why we have euro deployments, rochard, my (the) point is there are euro deployments, there are homeland deployments, there are deployments across the globe. the logistics that support an invasion of iran are staggering- we don't have the resources available over the next weeks or months to support a u.s. invasion of iran without drawdowns elsewhere. and it's simply not a fact that the military supply chain is outsourced.


we don't need to stop the russians?

Something like this is unfortunately very likely.

I've made similar predictions myself.

wait, everyone's NOT trained yet?!?! wtf?!?!

Where is the bear jew?

Israel will bomb the iran nuclear sites within the next few months....there wont be any ground war because the army in iran wont show up....The people of iran want a revolution and are not willing to die for the current government....missles may fly and bombs may drop but you wont see a ground war in iran :2 cents:

I clump it all together politicans, generals, soldiers... that is the military. Its easy to say well if this wasn't like this or that wasn't like that, we'd be kicking ass. The taliban controls 70% of Afganistan. They probably would control more if we didn't pay them off LOL

First of all, Iran is HUGE, so it is doubtful anything will happen via "precision" bombings. They most likely have MANY underground nuclear research facilities.

http://www.norrispeery.com/images/map_of_iran.jpg

In response to an attack, Iran will instantly target all US and Israeli ships in the Persian Gulf, and maybe even shut down the gulf, causing our gas and power prices to skyrocket.

You also have to imagine Russia and China will not be very happy, and North Korea will feel even more pressure to do something pro-active, as it watches the second of the 3 "axis-of-evil" countries getting attacked.

Nothing good will come from going to war with Iran... no way!

let`s move on...

Afford another war? What do you think would pull the economy around? One BIG fucking war. Jobs get created building war machines, the flock gets thinned out dyeing for the cause. The "wars" up to date will look like training.

Marine Corps

ASVAB Score - Marine Corps recruits must score at least 32. A very few exceptions are made (about one percent) for some exceptionally otherwise qualified recruits with scores as low as 25.

Education - As with the Air Force, those without a high school education are ineligible. The Marine Corps limits GED enlistments to no more than five percent per year. Those with a GED must score a minimum of 50 on the AFQT to even be considered.

Air Force

ASVAB Score - Air Force recruits must score at least 36 points the 99-point ASVAB (Note: The "Overall" ASVAB Score is known as the "AFQT Score," or "Armed Forces Qualification Test Score"). Exceptions are made, however, for a handful of high school graduates who can score as low as 31. In actuality, the vast majority (over 70 percent) of those accepted for an Air Force enlistment score 50 or above.

Education - You're more likely to be struck by lightning than enlist in the Air Force without a high school diploma. Even with a GED, the chances are not good. Only about 1/2 of a percent of all Air Force enlistments each year are GED-Holders. To even be considered for one of these very few slots, a GED-holder must score a minimum of 65 on the AFQT. The Air Force allows a higher enlistment rank for recruits with college credit.

Navy

ASVAB Score - Navy recruits must score at least 35 on the AFQT. The Navy raised this requirement from 31 in 2003 for active duty accessions. Reserve enlistment programs still only require a score of 31.

Education - Like the Air Force, the Navy accepts very, very few recruits who don't have a high school diploma. To be considered for enlistment with a GED, you must score a minimum of 50 on the AFQT. You must also have no drug use, and at least three references from influential members of the community (police, fire, judge, teacher, ect.). Any police involvement, other than minor traffic offenses will also disqualify a GED applicant.

Army

ASVAB Score - The Army requires a minimum AFQT Score of 31 to qualify for enlistment. However, in recent months, the Army has been approving more and more waivers for those with scores as low as 26 (Category IVA). To qualify for certain enlistment incentives, such as enlistment bonuses, an Army recruit must score a minimum of 50.

Education - The Army allows more recruits to enlist with a GED than any other branch. In Fiscal Year 2008, only 83 percent of new Army recruits had a high school diploma (or at least 15 college credits), comparted with the Department of Defense (DOD) average of 92 percent. The Army even has a special program, called Army Prep School, that allows individuals to enlist who have no high school diploma or GED.

Now who is it that is on "crack"...sport?

Most serial killers are pretty well educated too. So what?...

http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n07/d.../killers_i.htm

Exactly... just look at what WWII did to the economy. Boom times!

If you would have read the posts in this thread you would have read this.

Posted by Metaman...i dont make it up it is fact. they (speaking about the military) prefer under educated poor people who are easily controlled.

That is the "what".

Ahhh, I see... sorry about the mix up.

At the risk of sounding arrogant and overconfident I'll say with pretty much 100% certainty that those US and Israeli warships in the Persian Gulf are able to easily handle anything the likes of Iran could throw at them. As well, the shitstorm that would rain down on Iran FROM those same ships will shake the solar system in severity.

In my opinion a war with Iran would be stupid, but only in the sense that Iran itself would be utterly brainless to keep on with their nuclear development plans and thus provoke said war.

Bottom line is if anyone is going to start or cause this war it's going to be Iran.

That is exactly the point. :thumbsup

didn't mean to imply that you posted it because you were a nutbar or something, but I was curious as to what you take was on the possibility of the war happening.

I have a deep down gut feeling that near the end of his term Obama is going to try his hand at being a 'war president' because going to war (historically speaking of course) polarizes a population to back their leader and their country. Nothing better for the polls than a good ol' war.

I agree with you that it would/will be like no other previous war. I think if it happens it will be as big a mess as Iraq to begin with and only get that much worse. The race and religion card will be played even more because it will be yet another brown muslim country being invaded by the white american devils...

It's my understanding that the Iranians have one, maybe two, facilities capable of producing a nuclear weapons and that the American and Israeli governments know exactly where they are.


At the price of hiding from drone missiles launched at their leadership and the immediate families thereof, something they will, no doubt, be advised of in advance. As if any such warning were necessary.


Russia and China won't throw it all away for Iran.

North Korea knows that we won't attack them because they already have nukes.


Far worse will come from an Iran with nuclear capabilities IMO.

I'm a big Obama supporter, but if he agrees to join in a war on Iran he will not be getting my vote again in 2012.

Just to clarify, Russia is trying to join WTO, they're not fans of NATO

i would say you don't know what you're talking about

see: sunfire missile

No rebuttal though. Good argument. :thumbsup

Thanks for chiming in though.

sorry, doing stuff and couldn't get back with the link in time :\

but for arguments sake, why exactly do you think that armada could handle 'anything'?

I'm aware that Iran has military capabilities. I'm also quite aware that the US and Israeli militaries are also aware of it, and have technology and tactics being put in place to deal with it.

In any war it's the side that can deal the most damage that "wins". If you seriously think Iran can deal more than a fraction of the damage that the US & co. can do then I'd say it is you who doesn't know what he's talking about.

right, so what defense, exactly, do they have against a missile that goes mach 2.9 designed specifically for the very anti-missile systems in place? Considering how well the Americans did with the scuds in the exact same area, i'd say the odds are good the iranians are going to blow up billions of dollars worth of equipment in a very short time frame, as well as shutting down one of the most vital economic links of the world.

if you do answer this question, please inform the US Navy.

I never meant to imply that Iran could do zero damage. Of course they definitely can deal a certain measure, no question, so on that point I'm not arguing with you.

Let me put it to you this way: You are Iran. You fire off a volley of those missiles against ships in the gulf. I'd hazard a guess it would go something like this: the point or points of origin of your missiles would be pinpointed within seconds via a combo of radar and satellite systems, from not one but from many DOZENS of ships and military installations throughout the region. Within a short period of time, probably minutes, the sites from which you launched your missiles would be utterly evaporated. Rest assured those would be the last missiles those sites would fire.

From that point on it would be game on, and "game on" to the US military in the ME means raining down a veritable shitstorm, constant, targeted, and without end until you (Iran) get your head out of your ass and surrender.

But yes, it's quite possible that the missiles you did fire did some serious damage. Nothing that would win an entire war, but definitely serious. Serious enough to further piss off an already pissed off sleeping giant.

So, you are saying Iran would send out a fleet of mobile launchers, or will they be firing missiles from schools, mosques, churches, oil rigs, and residential areas?

Maybe just a combo of all of the above?

That should help make an attack on a country who hasn't attacked anyone, go down pretty damn smooth internationally... don't you think?

Piece of cake, right?